|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Political Philosophy and Modern Religion
| Article
# : |
12250 |
|
|
Section : |
Modern Thought
|
| Issue
Date : |
2 / 1987 |
2,130 Words |
| Author
: |
James V. Schall
James V. Schall is associate professor of government at
Georgetown University. His most recent work is entitled the
Politics of Heaven and Hell. |
At one time, not too long ago, the Catholic church appeared to be a cohesive organization, with clearly defined and widely known beliefs and practices. Not every Catholic fully grasped or practiced every tenet of his faith. But not believing or nor practicing was not rationalized into a religious virtue. Failures, sins, or errors, that is to say, were not mistaken for righteousness or truth. The capacity to understand the place of deviation from practice or belief allowed space for forgiveness and for spiritual and ecclesiastical standards. It permitted an acknowledgement of personal responsibility. The solution of a problem of disbelief or vice was not to change the definition of a belief or virtue so that the disbeliever would not feel "uncomfortable." Truth and virtue were not understood to be relative to time, place, or culture. The extreme formulation of modern democracy, namely, that freedom exists only on the hypothesis that nothing is true, we rightly seen as intrinsically hostile to Catholicism.
No one had to believe or agree with an doctrine or doctrine or practice, of course, but there was, on the part of many, a kind of grudging admiration for what the church held about itself. Anyone who subjected to essential Catholic teachings could join some institution that was more in conformity with what he held. It seemed odd to think that the church should change to conform to anyone's private views.
There was, furthermore, an intellectual structure in which any doctrinal or moral position could be placed and defended, more or less adequately, against any outside doubt or criticism. This was the primary function that a philosophia perenis could provide for the faith. This sort of church was a kind of anathema to the modern rationalist mind, no doubt. On the other hand, without this stability, modernity had nothing against which to define itself. The loss of doctrinal standards paradoxically led to the establishment of nothing but change, with the necessary loss of any abiding standards.
Indeed, proponents of modernization long held that religion would simply "disappear" as people grew more "reasonable." But it now looks like religion will not disappear in the normal sense of that prediction. Rather, it appears that religion will end up maintaining about itself the same beliefs as those held by modernists. These beliefs are now couched in several easily adaptable terms like "dialogue," "rights," "liberation," "concern," sincerity, or "benevolence." Some Christian phraseology remain in use, but their content will be taken from modernity, not from biblical or classical sources. The superstructure will be there, but
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
